Importance of Literature

The most interesting statement for me in all of the readings on the Snow-Leavis controversy is when Trilling makes his criticism about Snow’s statement about how scientists have “the future in their bones,” and states some reasons for the defense of literature and Snow’s misunderstanding of it. When referring to students ‘of radical social and political opinion’ he says that: “they are to trust the tale and not the teller of the tale. They perceive that the tale is always on the side of their own generous impulses. They know that, if the future is in the bones of anyone, it is in the bones of the literary genius, and exactly because the present is in his bones, exactly because the past is in his bones. They know that if a work of literature has any true artistic existence, it has value as a criticism of life” (Trilling, III).

First, Trilling is recognizing the importance of history and the present to inform and motivate movement towards the future, something that Snow neglects. Snow seems focused on what the future can be in the light of science.

Also this passage seems to be saying that the value in a work of literature is not to be found entirely in the literary intellectuals or “Luddites,” but instead in the value of the work as it stands in contrast to ourselves and the qualities of life we should have. Snow is focusing on the writers themselves and the messages that they are putting forth, crudely I agree, but the relationship of the work to the reader and their beliefs is being ignored. People have the ability to understand that ideas brought to light by literary geniuses can have faults, as Trilling says: “they happen upon contempt for some idea which they have connected with political virtue, they are not slow to understand that it is not the in its ideal form that is being despised, but the idea as it passes current in specious form, among certain and particular persons.” The literary genius hits on a point of concern or a philosophy, and then it is up to the readers to discern it. Is this the kind of exchange between writer, idea, and reader that needs to be gotten rid of in Snow’s conception of the future? Could a world be constructed where regard for history is ignored?

Leavis reading with Trilling

"He would be still more surprised to be told it is cliche when, describing the distinctive traits of his scientists, he says: 'they have the future in their bones.' He clearly feels that it has an idiosyncratic speech-raciness that gives his wisdom a genial authority. But it is basic cliche- for Snow's pretensions, more damagingly cliche than the kind of thing I instanced first, for it dismisses the issue, tacitly eliminates the problem, discussion of which would have been the raison detre of the lecture if Snow had been capable of the preoccupation, and the accordant exercise of thought, he advertises." (Leavis, 37)

How did the differing writing styles of the Leavis and Snow readings lend credulity or deter readers from their message? Does Snow's writing contain dangerous generalizations? Did Leavis' article show any resemblance the "traditional culture" Snow describes? Does Leavis provide a more effective educational plan than Snow's?

A Problem for Others to Solve

In his assessment of "The Two Cultures," Trilling identifies a problem in Snow's analysis that was very troubling to me as well: Throughout the lecture, Snow deplores the fact that modern education has become so specialized and that students are not as well-rounded as they were in the past. Students, he says, should be more like himself, with a solid background in both literature and science. Since Snow himself is so well-rounded and so knowledgeable about the flaws in modern education, it would seem appropriate for him to have some tangible solution in mind for the problem that he identifies. However, as Trilling points out, this is not the case: "Although he would seem the likeliest person in the world to speak intelligently about the instruction in science of students who do not intend to be scientists, actually he says nothing more on the subject than that ignorance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is equivalent to ignorance of Shakespeare...Nor does he propose anything for the education of the scientist, except, of course, science. He does say that scientists need to be "trained not only in scientific but in human terms," but he does not say how." Thus, instead of taking on the problem himself, Snow seems content to leave it to a specialist, a product of the very system that he is speaking out against. Since he does not have any plan in mind, I can't help but wonder whether Snow actually believes that what he says can be done or whether he is simply being idealistic. Is it possible that the Industrial and Scientific Revolutions made the specialization of education not only inevitable, but necessary?

Trilling, Politics, and the Power of Science

“But if we make believe, as the Two Cultures does, that politics does not exist at all, then it cannot be the object of moral judgment. And if we deny all authority to literature, as the Two Cultures does, going so far as to say that the great traditional agency of moral awareness is itself immoral, then the very activity of moral judgment is impunged, except for that single instance of it which asserts the rightness of bringing the benefits of science to the disadvantaged of the world. In short, Sir Charles, seeking to advance the cause of understanding between the west and the soviet union , would seem to be saying that this understanding will come if we conceive both that politics cannot be judged (because it does not really exist) and that it should not be judged (because the traditional agency of judgment is irresponsible).
Trilling provokes several questions for me. Is science really this great equalizer which could have brought Russia and the west together to work towards a common goal just because it can transcend social classes in England? If this isn’t a realistic goal for science, is Snow really this naïve or idealistic? Does Snow’s thesis really demand the non-existence of politics? If he is correct, what does this mean for our understanding of what Snow's argument?

Snow and Leavis - Time

"What we need, and we shall continue to need not less, is something with the livingness of the deepest vital instinct; as intelligence, a power - rooted, strong in experience, and supremely human - of creative response to the new challenges of time; something that is alien to either of Snow's cultures" (Leavis, 47)

In this passage, Leavis suggests that with the impending advancements of science and technology comes the need for mankind to be "in full intelligent possession of its full humanity" and that Snow's cultures don't allow for or account for this. Do you find this to be a problem in Snow's "Two Cultures"? Snow consistently focuses on historical background and uses it as a paradigm for seems necessary for the future, and yet Leavis stops this idea short by stating that Snow's concept of the two cultures and how life is now has no answer for what the future is bringing. Thoughts?

Why do we study the humanities?

Snow's Two Cultures makes me question the value of the PLS education. If there are in fact two cultures, it seems to me that the scientific culture is clearly superior to the non-scientific culture, as the scientific culture provides "the only hope for the poor" (25). It is the scientific culture that actually contributes to the betterment of society. What then is the role of the non-scientific culture? Is the non-scientific culture important, or is it a waste of time? Why should we really care if scientists have ever read Shakespeare or Dickens when it is the scientists, not the "traditional intellectuals," who actually contribute to society?

Heat won't pass from a cooler to a hotter ...

... you can try it if you like but you far better notta.

If you enjoy very old-fashioned humor, listen to the immortal Michael Flanders and Donald Swann explaining the Second Law of Thermodynamics (a few years after Snow's essay appeared). It's one of the best songs ever written about a fundamental physical law.

Science Majors

This reading at first was similarly disturbing for me. I discussed it with a few of my friends in Sorin who are science majors. Their response to Snow's argument was essentially, "So what?" I then started to question Snow's main point. Why does it matter whether the disciplines are increasingly divergent? Isn't the key to efficiency the specialization of labor as in an assembly line? Snow may be correct, but does it really matter if the academics of the country are not on the same page?

Also, I stumbled across this comic strip that may show the scientists' side of how literary academics appear: http://xkcd.com/451/

Snow's Problem with Educational Specialization

I very much agree with Snow's analysis of the two cultures. I think that his work implies that the value of any specific scientific concentration is fundamentally diminished without the application to the larger societal questions that are stressed by the liberal arts. What interests me most in Snow's discussion is its relevance to politics, government and moral decision-making today. Of the scientists he writes, "in the moral, they are the by and large the soundest group of intellectuals we have; there is a moral component right in the grain of science itself, and almost all scientists form their own judgments of the moral life" (13). With such a large interplay between scientists and those who participate in the liberal professions, what is a pragmatic solution to the bridge between the two cultures? It seems that both could make better decisions with the help of the other. But can they ever learn to work together? If not, is it feasible to provide every person with a thorough scientific and liberal arts education?

PLS and The Two Cultures

The goal with a PLS education is to go back to the type of education prior to the great divide between Snow's Two Cultures.  We are supposed to view everything under the title of a greater philosophy.  It still seems, however, that it becomes difficult for those of us with a PLS education to adequately communicate with the scientists of our time.  Does this mean PLS is not completing its job? Is there something we can do to remedy the situation?

Auschwitz and Hiroshima

On page 7 Snow describes "being cross-examined by a scientist of distinction" who asks, "'didn't the influence of all [that literary intellectuals] represent bring Auschwitz that much nearer?'" These two men share a belief that non-scientists glorify tragedy and are therefore partly responsible for the suffering that occurred during WWII at places like Auschwitz.

Yet, was it not the invention of the atomic bomb from within the scientific community that clinched the fates of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Even if Snow and this nameless scientist reconcile the decision to drop the bombs from the utilitarian point of view that by sacrificing the lives of the people within those cities they saved the lives that would have been lost in a continuing war, it remains that incalculable suffering occurred based on the success of a scientific discovery. How would Snow defend the fact that scientific discoveries can be and are used to create tragedy?

Two Cultures Reading 1

Snow laments on page 16 of our reading that "the clashing point of two subjects, two disciplines, two cultures- of two galaxies, so far as that goes- ought to produce creative changes." However, it seems as though communication between the two cultures is very limited, almost as though we lack a common language. Even the way we look at books is different: "Books? I prefer to use my books as tools" (13). Does Snow provide an educational plan to remedy this disparity? If not, what did he mean to convey with this speech and, particularly, its title?